Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 11 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear which side of the component is attached to the carrier or if carrier is being used to represent both temporary carrier and permanent carrier. As best understood by the examiner, the component is picked on one side by a tool in claim 9, then further picked by another tool at an opposing OTHER side in claim 10, it is then placed on the carrier on said one side (not OTHER side), and the final line of the claim then places the picked component with the OTHER side on the carrier. Clarification is required.
Claims 10 has not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0023479) in view of Ting et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0081200).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a method comprising:
mounting a plurality of electronic components on assigned parts of an adhesive base structure on a temporary carrier [fig. 1, components 11, adhesive base structure 21, carrier 20];
dissolving said parts of the base structure by irradiating said parts of the base structure with electromagnetic radiation to thereby release the electronic components [fig. 1, light B from emitting module 40, decomposes 21 and releases component 11]; and
transferring the electronic components to soldering the electronic components on one or more permanent carriers [fig. 1, 11 transferred to 30, paragraph [0016] teaches using solder to attach 11 to 30].
While Lin teaches using solder they fail to teach a batch soldering process to attach the components to the permanent carrier.
However, Ting teaches transferring components from a temporary carrier to a permanent carrier and attaching them using a batch soldering process [fig. 3 and 4, paragraphs [0031-0033] solder 120 pads are all heated in a single step and components are bonded to them].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ting into the method of Lin by performing a batch soldering process to attach the electronic components to the permanent carrier. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lin in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using a bonding method that yields a stronger connection strength preventing any unexpected shift [Ting, paragraph [0039]].
Regarding claim 2, Lin in view of Ting discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the electronic components are connected with the ate least one permanent carrier by batch diffusion soldering [paragraphs [0034 and 0039] teach the process uses diffusion force to bond, which is being interpreted as diffusion soldering].
Regarding claim 3, Lin in view of Ting teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the electronic components are connected with the at least one permanent carrier by an adhesive medium on a main surface of the at least one carrier, wherein the adhesive medium is at least one of an adhesive solder paste, an adhesive sinter paste and a glue [Lin, paragraph [0016] solder paste].
Regarding claim 4, Lin in view of Ting discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises dissolving said at least part of the base structure so that the base structure is transferred from a component carry solid into a component releasing dissolved gaseous and/our liquid state [Lin, paragraphs [0014 and 0026] decomposition by gasification].
Regarding claim 5, Lin in view of Ting teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises irradiating the base structure with electromagnetic radiation source configured as a laser to thereby release the electronic component [Ting, paragraph [0036]].
Regarding claim 6, Lin in view of Ting discloses the method according to claim 1 wherein the method comprises aligning a mutual position between, on the one hand, a carrier for carrying the electronic component and, on the other hand, the released electronic component so that the electronic component is transferred and lands on the carrier [Lin, paragraph [0015]].
Regarding claim 7, Lin in view of Ting teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises dissolving the at least part of the base structure while the electronic component is located at a bottom side of the adhesive base structure [Lin, paragraphs [0014 and 0026], the side the component is attached to can be considered a bottom side].
Regarding claim 8, Lin in view of Ting discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises dissolving the at least part of the base structure while the electronic component is located at a top side of the adhesive base structure [Lin, paragraphs [0014 and 0026], the side the component is attached to can be considered a top side].
Regarding claim 11, Lin in view of Ting teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises dissolving the at least part of the base structure by irradiating with electromagnetic radiation to thereby release a plurality of electronic components to transfer the plurality of electronic components to a further carrier with changed, in particular increased, pitch compared with another pitch of the plurality of electronic components on the temporary carrier [Lin, fig. 2a-2c show the pitch (arrangement and spacing of devices) is different on the temporary carrier 20 than on the further carrier 30, the spacing (pitch) on 30 is bigger than on 20].
Regarding claim 13, Lin in view of Ting discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising at least one of the following features:
wherein the method comprises mounting the electronic component on the adhesive base structure on an optically transparent temporary carrier, and irradiating the base structure with electromagnetic radiation through the optically transparent temporary carrier for dissolving at least part of the base structure [fig. 1, light B goes through carrier substrate 20, claim 5 also teaches 20 as transparent];
wherein the method comprises irradiating the base structure by scanning the base structure by an electromagnetic radiation source by moving, on the one hand, the electromagnetic radiation source and/or an electromagnetic radiation beam thereof and, on the other hand, the base structure relative to each other;
wherein the method comprises irradiating the base structure through a partially optically transparent and partially opaque mask arranged between the base structure and the electromagnetic radiation source, in particular a greyscale mask configured for irradiating a portion of the base structure corresponding to an edge of the electronic component with higher intensity than another portion of the base structure corresponding to a center of the electronic component.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Ting as applied to claims 1-8, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Brod et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0164472).
Regarding claim 9, Lin in view of Ting teaches using a picking too and placing the picked electronic component on a carrier, they fail to teach the picking tool is a suction type picking tool.
However, Brod teaches a process in which components are picked up from a temporary carrier using a suction type tool [paragraphs [0014-0022], vacuum pipette picks chips from a carrier].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Brod into the method of Lin in view of Ting by using a suction type picking tool to pick an electronic component and place the picked component on a carrier. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lin in view of Ting in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing a known effective method for moving detached components without damaging said components.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Ting as applied to claims 1-8, 11 and 13 above, and further in view of Ekkels et al. (US Pat. Pub. 10,186,447).
Regarding claim 14, Lin in view of Ting fails to teach thinning and separating a wafer into a plurality of electronic components.
However, Ekkels teaches a method for separating a wafer into a plurality of electronic components by thinning a wafer and separating said wafer while arranged on an adhesive base structure [figs. 1a-1d, wafer 2 is thinning from the back side, once thinning has been completed, the grooves 4 become separation between components, layer 5 is an adhesive base structure].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Ekkels into the method of Lin in view of Ting by thinning and separating a wafer into a plurality of electronic components while the wafer is arranged on the adhesive base structure. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Lin in view of Ting in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of reducing thickness variations of chips by using a thinning step separate from carrier attachment [Ekkels, column 2, lines 8-11].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-8794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN M PARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights